Nationally,
they show the radical federation United Left (IU) within reach of closing the
gap on the social-democratic Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE). In the
June Metroscopia
poll IU trailed just 4.7% percentage points behind the
PSOE (16.8% to 21.5%).

Spanish
social democracy’s decline is most advanced in Catalonia and Galicia, and in
the capital Madrid. A May 5 Asca
poll showed the Galician Left Alternative (AGE)—in which
IU participates with the left-nationalist ANOVA, the all-Spanish green party
Equo and the Galician Ecosocialist Space (EEG)—doubling its presence in the
75-seat Galician parliament to 18 seats. That would put it just one seat behind
the PSOE (represented in Galicia by the Party of Socialists of Galicia, PSG).

A
June 6 Gesop
poll put IU’s Catalan affiliate, the United and
Alternative Left (EUiA), which acts in electoral coalition with Initiative for
Catalonia-Greens (ICV), in a similar position. The alliance is now level-pegging
on 12.2% with the Party of Catalan Socialists (PSC, the PSOE’s Catalan
affiliate).

In Andalusia, both
the PSOE and IU, running the regional government in alliance, would win increasing
support at the expense of a floundering PP (down from 40.7% to 29.5% support
since the May 2012 regional elections).

A
specific nightmare for the ruling national PP government of Mariano Rajoy would
be the arrival in the Community
of Navarra of a “Basquist” government (coalition of EH Bildu and
Geroa Bai, perhaps allied with IU). This would make possible a referendum to
ask the citizens if they wished Navarra to become a fourth province of Euskadi,
thereby possibly unifying Spain’s Basque-speaking lands into one unit (which
would actually be constitutional).

IU
is also now leading the PSOE in measures of voter loyalty: according to
Metroscopia 59.5% of those now leaning towards IU nationally would definitely
support the party if an election were held tomorrow, as against 47 % for the
PSOE.

How far from Syriza?

With
PSOE support becoming less and less “rusted-on” it’s little wonder that the
phrase “slow PASOKisation” is doing the rounds of political commentary here (in
reference to the near-complete marginalisation of the former governing Greek
social democratic party PASOK).

Alexis
Tsipras, the leader of the Greek radical left formation Syriza certainly thinks
a Greek tragedy awaits the PSOE. Speaking to the Madrid media during a week of
European solidarity organised by IU in May (and
which also featured France's Front de Gauche or Left Front leaders Pierre Laurent and Jean-Luc
Mélenchon), Tsipras said that PASOK “had lost all ties with the social layers
that used to support it.”

He continued:
“When we were a small party we were always asked if we would support a social
democratic government, but now the dilemma has changed and it’s the social
democrats that have to decide if they are going to contribute to a left
government or continue to support the right. I believe that social democrats in
Spain are going to face that dilemma very soon.”

Tsipras’s
comment may have been made out of solidarity with his hosts, and his
description of IU as Syriza’s “sister party” would have gone down well with
those who feel that IU is already “the Spanish Syriza”. However, among the
broader left and social resistance movements in the Spanish state, whether IU
is already, could become, or is excluded from ever becoming, a “Spanish Syriza”
is a debate that has become more heated as the federation rises in the polls.

The
publication on May 19 on the web site eldiario.es
of the article “United
Left—part of the solution or part of problem?”
was the occasion for a sharp exchange of opinion within this broader left. Its
author, Nacho Álvarez, University of Valladolid economics lecturer and
editorial council member of Viento
Sur, the
magazine close to the Anticapitalist Left (IA, local affiliate of the
Trotskyist Fourth International), summarised his analysis like this:

IU
confronts an enormous historical challenge. It has to choose between the certainty of winning some seats in the
next elections or the possibility of
loyally promoting a new political alternative, with real capacity to put the
lives of people ahead of profit. Sure, it’s not an easy decision, but the lack
of courage could lead to IU’s ceasing to be part of the solution and—by putting
the lid on a real process of refoundation—becoming part of the problem.

For
this process of refoundation to prevail will demand not only strategic vision
among the IU membership, but also a sizeable dose of political empathy,
generosity and awareness of the present challenge. It will also need this
membership to mobilise enough capacity internally to exercise pressure to drive
this process. An opposite result, the bunkering down of the bureaucratic
apparatuses in the certainty provided by their electoral prospects, will only
serve to delay and complicate the emergence of a true alternative. In politics,
as in life, there are trains that only pass once. The left in this country
should not let this one pass.

Álvarez’s
script for the IU membership to follow against the “bureaucratic apparatuses”
stirred many eldiario.es readers to
offer their own proposals. These covered practically all the main diagnoses and
treatments one hears within the left in the Spanish state. The debate got a
further push along after the June 7-8 “Alternatives
from Below” meeting in Madrid, where, upon the initiative of IA,
around 200 social movement activists and members from parties like IU, IA and
Equo (the all-Spanish green party) came together to start developing a minimum
program for a united political presence of the ·social movements and organised
left.

Left attitudes to IU

The
discussion on Álvarez’s piece indicated that many believe that much still
remains to be done to create a “Spanish Syriza”, despite the claim of IU’s
national coordinator, Cayo Lara—maybe made in a moment of understandable
exaltation after a
successful Tenth National Convention in December —that
“you don’t need to look any further, this is the Spanish Syriza”.

This
was a typical comment on Álvarez’s piece:

If
IU wins votes it will be within the corrupt system we’ve got. It will benefit
from the decline of two-partyism and I sincerely don’t believe that it can
aspire to much more than becoming an alternative to the PSOE…

But
that’s not the solution. We don’t need a change of labels under the same rules
of the game. ... We need to reform the Electoral Act, the Constitution and the
institutions. Recreate judicial independence, limit the power of the banks and
end the privileges of the church and the monarchy.

Or
what amounts to the same thing, IU’s program but with the will to implement
it.

This
confused post represents in an extreme form the “yes, but” attitude of many
progressive people towards IU. It takes this form: “Yes, I agree with [a lot of,
most of] the program”, to be then followed by a stream of qualifications. In
these the personalities of its leaders, events in its history, its sometimes
incandescent internal disputes (the
most recent in Madrid IU), its supposed manipulation by an allegedly
monolithic Communist Party of Spain (PCE) or the various attitudes adopted locally
towards the PSOE play a more or less important role.

At
times commentators just surrender to gloomy scepticism:

No
matter how much I sympathise with its program…who can assure us that IU will
not rapidly become corrupted in this country that knows no better history?

Some
further comments:

-- IU
is run by the Communist Party [PCE], which has never given up any power in the
25 years IU has been running, achieving the result that nearly all independents
have left, fed up with the lack of internal democracy. IU is not going to open
up or take risks, now that without much work it will be showered with more than
20 MPs.

-- In
Asturias they’ve spent too many years taking part in the PSOE’s regime of
political bosses…while the old glories hang onto the privileges they’ve
obtained at the cost of renouncing their principles, they’re going to continue
to be part of the problem and they’re going to continue to block or slow down
the changes that are every day more necessary to save the country.

-- The
main danger that the project of building a government alternative from the left
runs lies within the organised forces that claim that space…The speed with
which IU moved to proclaim itself the Spanish Syriza says a lot about what I
fear—the obsession with occupying the ‘remunerable’ positions that an electoral
success would generate.

-- Many
people from the social movements want to know absolutely nothing about
political parties. It doesn’t matter that IU wants to involve them…Politics has
such a bad name that the people with presence in the social movements don’t
want to 'soil' their image by getting involved with any party. What with that
and the accusations that IU wants to 'gobble up' the social movements, it’s not
so easy to attract social movement people to IU. That
said, if [youngest national MP and 15M activist] Alberto Garzón were IU’s
number one instead of [actual national coordinator] Cayo Lara, I am sure that
the convergence would be easier, for the simple fact that they have very
different ways of doing politics, even though both are very honest.

Inevitably,
IU members got involved in the discussion, having to devote much of their
comment to correcting misinformation:

-- It
is not true that IU has reached 'government deals wherever possible'. In fact,
only in Andalusia [where IU governs as junior partner to the PSOE]. In
Asturias, where it was possible, no government agreement was reached. In
Extremadura there was no government deal (no-one from IU is in the government).
At the investiture IU abstained. The
only thing in common between these three cases where a government deal was ‘possible’
for IU was that the membership decided. In Andalusia the membership decided to
approve the government deal in a referendum, in Asturias it was decided not to
approve an agreement for government (formation of a PSOE government was
supported with IU passing into opposition), also by referendum; in Extremadura
abstention was decided by a more complex process but also involving consultation
of the membership. That
what we need is a constituent process based on a political alliance in which IU
also takes part is something which we defend from within IU.

Another
contributor reminded the list that IU had been engaging with the 15M and the
social movements for two years and “doing it relatively well”. Recalling the situation
where IU MPs were booed in the early days of indignado demonstrations, he or she wrote:

Nowadays
this doesn’t happen, IU deputies and full-timers go to 15M assemblies,
demonstrations and anti-eviction pickets as a matter of course and little by
little you see among these movements and the people who support them that IU is
regarded as the party that defends them against the cuts and the injustices
committed by the banks and the government.

Many
of us would like to see IU definitively knit together all these movements into
an anti-government common front that stands in elections as a Spanish-style
Syriza, but that’s not something that can be achieved in a fortnight or even in
two years. I mean to say, it is not credible or possible that tomorrow Cayo
Lara meet with all these social movements and tell them: ‘Come on, over here
everyone.’

This
is a process that cooks on a very low flame and takes place because IU listens
to them, helps them and acts as the spokesperson of their demands, and I believe
that IU is doing all of that.

IU
is indispensable, but it is equally indispensable that it get involved in a
broader project with all those who, while sharing its minimum positions, are
not going to get involved in IU or give it their vote: they are many and each
of them has their own motivations.

IU’s latest initiatives

But
what, exactly, is being asked of IU
beyond Álvarez’s formulae of “political empathy, generosity and awareness of
the present situation”, or the outright silly (“get rid of the professional
pollies”)?

At
this point the contributions to the debate either repeated Álvarez’s approach or, at best,
formulae such as: “IU isn’t the Spanish Syriza, but should become it through a
big effort of convergence with the Platform of Mortgage Victims (PAH), people
from 15M, Real Democracy Now! (DRY) and a large train of other left people and
parties”.

It
was against this background that the May 25 meeting
of IU’s federal political council (CPF, its
governing body between conventions) took place. It adopted a perspective that—effectively
leaving to one side the issue of whether IU was already “the Spanish Syriza”—focused
on the need for IU to “contribute to shaping a broad Social and Political Bloc,
an alliance outlining an alternative social model”.

we must
knock down dividing walls, seek out points of agreement, highlight that which
unites us and downplay that which separates us, in order to coordinate efforts
and, most of all, combine energies.

In
that way we pose the need not only to confront the assaults of capital, but
above all to build an alternative for the future that gives direction to the
struggles presently being undertaken by thousands of people across the Spanish
state.

In
the light of experiences since its December national convention, the document also
began to give greater definition to the conception of “majority Social and
Political Bloc”, basing itself not only on the experiences of struggles within the Spanish state, but of
those across southern Europe and in Latin America.

Rejecting
the idea that this “unifying political instrument” will “arise mechanically
from agreement between IU and a group of more or less relevant political brand names“—even
while describing such unity pacts as “extraordinarily important”—it specified that
“the Social and Political Bloc cannot be an organisational structure, even less
an election platform.”

Rather,
it would involve bringing together in a “meeting and coordination space”
everyone involved in struggle who is reaching for a social, anti-capitalist way
out of the crisis. The approach would allow ideas and experiences to be
contributed and forces combined towards agreed goals in a framework that would provide
resistance to “sectarianism and personality politics”.

Its
conclusions “would be of use to all who call for the political, social, trade
union and cultural unity of progressive forces and individuals”.

This
was the message that Enrique Santiago, IU’s secretary for political-social
convergence, later took to the Madrid “Alternatives
from Below” meeting. In his intervention Santiago stressed the
need for the creation of a majority social and political bloc, without which
IU’s “rise in the polls would mean little”.

He also
urged that the “Alternatives from Below” process give attention to developing a
concrete platform of 25-30 proposals which could hopefully be the basis of a
broad, united ticket for the 2014 European elections.

‘There is an Alternative’

To
understand better the huge challenge facing IU and the broader left in the
Spanish state it helps to remember that
IU has been at a similar high point in the polls in
a previous period of disillusionment with the PSOE (the mid-1990s)—only to see
that support ebb back to the social democracy, seen as a lesser evil to the PP.

Moreover,
while support for the PSOE is today much
more seriously eroded (on latest polls it would get around six million votes
less than the 11 million in won in 2004 and 2008), only around two million of
those have shifted to IU, with the rest going to boost indecision, abstention
and ballot-spoiling (48.5% according to Metroscopia).

With
the PSOE leaders also doing everything within their power to avoid becoming the
“Spanish PASOK”, the pressure is on the IU leadership to consolidate its new
bases of support, to seek out newer alliances and to be seen by more people as
the real opposition to the PP government’s war of austerity.

There
is a lot of social and political struggle to go before any definitive “pasokisation”
of the PSOE can be confidently declared. One important factor is that the trade
union struggle in Spain still falls short of the Greek level (three general
strikes as against 18 since 2008); another is that the last PSOE national
government, while guilty of introducing the first round of austerity measures,
has managed to recover some opposition credentials on issues like evictions and
defence of public services; a third is the federal structure of the Spanish
state, which allows the PSOE’s regional organisations to pose as “staunch
opponents” of the national PP in Madrid.

Nonetheless,
part of the rise in support for IU is due to its success in being seen as the serious opposition to the Rajoy
government. In early May the federation produced an emergency €60 billion strategy
for job creation, with targets of 3.4 million jobs in three years, an
increase in the minimum wage from €645.30 to €1100 a month and a reduction in
the working week to 35 hours.

The
projects generating the employment would be focused on repair and recovery of
the countryside, extension of renewable energy, boosted investment in public
transport, restoration and extension of public services in health, education
and disability support, and upgrading of the housing stock to meet energy
efficiency standards.

Sub-plans
would include support to the self-employed and small business, expansion of the
public housing stock by 50,000 units, as well as specific anti-poverty
measures.

The
whole package would be financed by a war on tax evasion and an increased tax
rate for big business.

(In
Catalonia, news of this last measure was greeted by a lot of comment along the
lines of “if they can do that in Andalusia, why not here?”)

In
his report to the CPF Cayo Lara stressed: “The initiative of our Andalusian
comrades is extraordinarily positive for IU as a whole and transcends its
political importance including in the field of housing policy…Measures like
securing the right to housing or guaranteeing that the children of Andalusia
will not go to bed without their three meals a day reconcile people with politics and slow the growth of
alienation.”

Probably
the IU leadership’s most important act in removing unnecessary obstacles to
convergence with other progressive forces came on May 27. It addressed the key
issue of the right of nations within the Spanish state to decide their own
future— most immediately in relation to the national rights of the Catalans.

At
the Tenth National Convention the issue of what stance IU would take in the event
of the highly probable showdown between the Catalan and central PP government
over a Catalan consultation on the region’s future status was left unclarified.
At one later point, despite votes by the IU-led Plural Left caucus in the
Spanish parliament in support of the right to national self-determination, Cayo
Lara made a statement that seemed to throw into doubt the right of the Catalan
people alone to decide how Catalonia should relate to the Spanish state.

Recognising
the depth of the institutional crisis and of Catalan national sentiment
(despite its manipulation by the right-nationalist Catalan government of
Convergence and Union, CiU), the statement said: “In no case can the
Constitution or legality be advanced in order to oppose the holding of a referendum
in Catalonia. This is not a legal question but one of political will and, in
any case, laws can always be changed in order for the citizens of Catalonia to exercise
the right to freely decide their future.”

The
statement has had a big impact in Catalonia where IU is traditionally seen as a
“Spanish” political organisation. In adopting it IU took a further important step down the road
of consolidating one of the most important component parts of any alternative Social
and Political bloc—the nationalities oppressed by Spanish centralism.

The
IU-EUiA-ICV declaration over Catalonia’s right to decide would have been influenced
by the ongoing advance of AGE in Galicia. AGE was made possible by IU Galicia’s
recognition of the Galician people’s right to self-determination, opening the
door to a broad agreement with left-nationalist ANOVA and other forces. The
advance of AGE (the “Galician Syriza”) since the October 2102 regional
elections has been little short of explosive.

PSOE-PP counterattacks

The
central PSOE tactic against the rise of IU, but also against the PP, has been
to call for a national emergency coalition to tackle the crisis, in the hope of
winning kudos among the wavering as the political force most prepared to put
“the interests of Spain” before its own.

In
the perspective of building what would be a Spanish version of Australia’s 1980s
ALP-ACTU Accord PSOE leader Alfredo Rubalcaba has been visiting the union
confederations, business peak councils and other parties—like CiU, the Basque
Nationalist Party (PNV), ruling in Euskadi, and the Spanish-centralist Union
for Progress and Democracy (UPyD)—with the goal of developing a “program for
Spain”, and thereby increasing the pressure on the PP and IU to come show their
patriotism.

However, the
Rajoy government sees no need (yet) to do deals with the PSOE that would
involve giving up its goals of radically weakening the unions and recentralising
the Spanish state. The only agreement
Rajoy has been prepared to make with Rubalcaba has been for a joint “stand for Spain” at the June 27-28 meeting of the European Commission.

The idea here
is that the PP-PSOE dynastic duo will be able to “score a win” in Brussels
(maybe already organised with the EU powers-that-be), to be used to show that
there’s still validity in the old two-party arrangement (presently with less
than 45% support in the polls).

IU national MP
(and PCE national secretary) José Luis Centella accurately described this piece
of theatre as “the bipartisan agreement imposed by the men in black”— a
reference to the assessment teams sent by the EU, European Central Bank and
International Monetary Fund (the “troika”) to check up on how austerity is
being applied in its economic protectorates.

The PP’s own response
to the rise of IU has been to turn up “light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel” rhetoric
and to put pressure on the banks to start lending more to small business.
However, the Rajoy-big business fantasy that “we’re almost there, let’s not
wreck things now” runs smack bang against cold reality—families running out of
savings, rising poverty, and the inevitability of new attacks on the pension
system and organised labour (this last urged on June 19 by the latest visit of
the IMF’s “men in black”).

What of the
attitude of Spanish big capital to IU’s rise? An indicative moment came earlier
in the year when IU MP Alberto Garzón received a call from Antonio
Brufau, the boss of privatised Spanish oil giant Repsol,
asking for a meeting (it would have been the first between Spanish big business
and IU since Lara became national coordinator). Brufau said he wanted to
clarify IU’s position in regard to Argentinian government’s nationalisation of
Repsol’s assets in that country.

Garzón
commented that he was initially surprised by the call because “I hadn’t said
anything that IU hasn’t always defended, namely the renationalisation of the
economy’s strategic sectors—energy, communications, transport…It means that
they see that we are going to play a role in the future. If not it makes no
sense.” No meeting took place.

Challenges for whole left

At
this moment in the political struggle in the Spanish state it seems pretty
certain that an alliance able to represent all those forces and individuals
fighting for an anti-capitalist overcoming of the crisis will have to be a new political
creation. In the words of José Luis Centella: “These aren’t times for image
operations, because people know the situation is very serious.”

That
remains the case even if the final program of any new coalition is likely to be
similar to that which IU has been advancing over the past two years on the
basis of its engagement with the rising waves of social struggle.

However,
whether such a force does emerge won’t just depend on an IU that is always
being asked for further proof of its bona
fides. At its May 25 CPF IU issued a call (“For
a New Country in a New Europe”) which
challenged all collectives and individuals fighting austerity to “put the
interests of majorities before the discrepancies, suspicions, mistrust or
specific interests that would without doubt make impossible advance in the
creation of broad areas of convergence.”

It
concluded: “In this exceptional moment only a broad social and political
convergence forged through a really participatory process will allow us to
advance in the construction of that alternative Social and Political Bloc that
would be in condition to achieve an electoral expression and run a united
campaign for the 2014 European elections. The goal that the United Left pursues
with this broad proposal of convergence with others, is to convert the social
majority suffering the assaults of neoliberalism into a political majority
sufficient to undertake the immediate refounding of the European Union, putting
the interest of our peoples before that of the economic power of finance.”

The
ball is in the court of the other organised forces on the Spanish left, like
Equo (which still insists on candidates being elected by primaries) and the Anticapitalist
Left (with its call for non-payment of all public debt).

Will
such forces be able to rise to the challenge of compromise in the name of
building a force which, if eventually created, everyone would be happy to call
the Spanish Syriza?

[Dick Nichols is the European correspondent for
Links International Journal of
Socialist Renewal and Green Left Weekly, based in Barcelona.]